<p>SM…have u recd ur IUB decision?</p>
<p>best of luck if u hvnt yet…</p>
<p>NUS admissions is one of the worst I’ve encountered to date. :(</p>
<p>why so, kenyon?</p>
<p>yeah why so kenyon??</p>
<p>i havnt decided on imperial…but its probably no…
im gonna accept my nus offer, but if i do get upenn (o.000001 chance)
then ill take that…</p>
<p>great sj3… best of luck for Upenn</p>
<p>I am yet to get IUB’s decision which is expected like any day now…</p>
<p>SM</p>
<p>k,best of luck for IUB SM</p>
<p>sJ3 - i will most probably end up at NUS,be glad to run into u ther but consider imperial again man…PS-best of luck for UPenn…</p>
<p>got acceptd at IUB and with a 8500 euro scholarship… :):)
waiting for the financial aid package now…</p>
<p>SM</p>
<p>well , well done again …germany is on right??</p>
<p>yup previously i was almost considering some other options too but with that scholarship that ensures my zero loan and almost extrremely cheap education, i think now germany is on…</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>SM</p>
<p>cool…wish u luck…</p>
<p>I am not going to say it explicitly… but I had quite bad impression with them. I like SMU admissions though. Very personal. :D</p>
<p>hmmm… I’m not sure what you are referring to exactly, and I’m not sure what experience you had with one of the administrative clerk, but if you like SMU’s admissions simply because they attend to applicants on a personal basis, do realise that since NUS is a more established (100yrs old, and a good international reputation), and offers more variety of courses (Arts, Science, Engine, Computing, Architecture, Real Estate, Business etc), thus there is naturally more local and international applications that they receive and tend to, compared to SMU, which was established in 2000 and offers fewer, but more specialised courses tending largely to business management. This may be why SMU can afford to be more ‘personalized’ in their services I guess. </p>
<p>Just my 2cents worth, yupps :D</p>
<p>I agree. NUS is impersonal and even their orange letters are boring =p. But the thing is, they have so many applicants to cater to - and NUS has got substance even if they have zero marketing ability. I get the feeling that SMU is a lot of hot-air in terms of their marketing. They speak about “vibrant American-styled pedagogy”, being the Singapore branch of Wharton, basing their business program on the Huntsman Program. However, the admission committees weren’t even aware that the bicultural aspect was the main thrust of the Huntsman Program (personal anecdote here). Does good marketing make a good school? There is nothing wrong with both schools; it’s just that I feel that sometimes marketing just blinds us from the fact that at the very core, neither school is very much different. The way things are going now, I wouldn’t be surprised if NUS sells itself as Singapore’s Harvard, and NTU sells itself as Singapore’s MIT. =p</p>
<p>Yeah… I still remember one guy from NTU telling me that NTU is on par with MIT. :D</p>
<p>And oh eunique, Princeton (or most American Universities) is much more established than NUS and also offer a wide array of majors/courses. But yet, every applicant is at least given a chance for interview be it by admissions committee members or the universities’ alumni. And for universities like Brown/Columbia, there’s an accepted students party or something like that. Even for Kenyon, the alumni contacted me. =)</p>
<p>Also, SMU received 10000++ applications this year (a damn large number for her size). But yet, they are willing to call up almost every applicant to schedule an interview. Better yet, the interviews are quite fun and stimulating actually. You can really see that these people do put in a LOT of efforts. (Although obviously one shouldnt judge a school by the marketing/admissions/hype) NUS is more like “Oh no, not again, the start of another admissions cycle”… And not to mention that NUS sucks in writing letters to prospective students, unlike Kenyon, SMU and many other universities in the States. One more thing I dislike about NUS or NTU is that every single thing is quantifiable to them. Erm, CCA points, University Admissions points. The rest usually does not matter that much unless one is applying for Law/Medicine. And they place sooo much emphasis on your A level results, which is taken at one shot. So students who have been slacking throughout their JC years can still miraculously end up in some competitive faculties.</p>
<p>very true about NUS/NTU - one of my friends who is very very brilliant scored 2200+ on her SAT I and straight A’s in AS level was rejected because she had 690 SAT II Math Level II … and they said that they automatically rejected those with less than 700 on their SAT II’s when she appealed… its like they use an admission software or something…</p>
<p>So does NUS place alot of emphasis on SAT II in their admission process?</p>
<p>kenyon_10:
so you’ve had a tele interview with SMU? what did they ask you?</p>
<p>Erm nope, I do not have a tele interview with SMU. I went down to that gorgeous campus. </p>
<p>For international students, NUS/NTU place emphasis on SAT II especially if one is applying for qualitative courses like Computer Science or something.</p>
<p>Haha I’m going to play the devil’s advocate here, but who says SMU is really qualitative? By the way, don’t blame NUS/NTU for their quantitative approach with regards to CCA; this is the MOE’s fault. They see the flaws of the CCA system, and they give you an opportunity to explain it in your discretionary admissions. My friend represented Singapore in sports and ended up with a C for CCA. Does that devalue her achievement? I think they will look at it otherwise.</p>
<p>Another friend went for the SMU interview and the first thing they said to her was that based on her grades, she was guaranteed a place (granted she got 4As and 2Ds) - but who’s to say that SMU looks at you as a person and not a statistic? Looking at someone as a “person” is the best way to form a campus of people who may ultimately be quite inept at what they are actually doing (studying!). My friends were also upset at how superficial the SMU group interviews were, what with people proclaiming their love for SMU and the PAP (with much irrelevance). </p>
<p>There is no way any Singapore university will get away with being too qualitative - unless you are talking about Law and Medicine faculties. It’s just not in our culture. And frankly I’m not entirely approving of qualitative admissions either, given how demand just outstrips supply. It’s unfair for someone smart but with a cardboard personality to be denied higher education just because he/she is completely colourless. It isn’t a crime to be boring you know. =p It just isn’t the US where there are plenty of colleges willing to take the most dull student on earth.</p>